Buy a D600 or a D700 ?

I would recommend the D600, but there are two things holding be off from that:

-Nikon quality control with this generation of cameras has been poor

-Nikon repair service has a rather lackluster reputation (to put it mildly)

I've seen people complaining about D800s with misaligned left AF points, D600s with more dust than normal, and D4s that can't track as well as the previous D3s (as well as D4s with left focus issues). Having either poor quality control or a poor repair service might be ok, but have both together, and there's really a problem.

Don't get me wrong - Nikon has put out some exceptional FF cameras this year. It's pretty hard to find another brand that matches Nikon. However, I really think they shot themselves in the foot by dropping the ball with quality control and customer service. Really...I've seen pros thinking about switching to Canon based on poor service, even though they like Nikon cameras better.

I guess people can say that the D800 is a landscape camera where AF isn't important, and that you won't see dust on the D600 if you shoot sports/portraits because you'll be using a fast aperture anyways, but such problems really should not exist on $2000+ cameras. And if they did, the company should own up to it and fix it.

And don't expect old cameras to work perfectly either. It seems like the D3 I'm borrowing has left AF problems, and some switches are inconsistent. Make sure you can test before you buy.

So here's my advice: Wait until Nikon gets its act together and buy one of the new FF cameras. The D600 is a really good choice. The D800 is too. But you really shouldn't have to deal with poor QC and poor customer service with $2000+ cameras.

If Nikon doesn't improve, buy an old D700. Sure, you lose on IQ...but I don't want to give a company money if it can't respect its customers. And the D700 still offers very good IQ. It'll get the job done, and will do 8 fps with a battery grip (the D600/800 can't match that).